Why overtaxing the rich is wrong

Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by Cornish Steve, Apr 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hmmm

    hmmm UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,722 127

    this is true and a good point..but fact is you did have the children and it was spent on them..and the whole point of this is where is it being spent rather than where might it have been,which in turn creates a worth
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
    Posted: May 1, 2011 By: hmmm Member since: Apr 14, 2011
  2. Dawg

    Dawg UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    10,900 3,466
    Jeebus wept ...

    This is Pot Kettle par excellence.
    I was trying to be ironic. Yet again, in the face of weapons grade bovine thought it seems to have been missed.
    And now you want to debate 'worth'?

    Palm, meet face.
    Leave it, 'e ain't worf it...

    (Shall we rename this thread: 'lets defend scroungers on a business forum, as that's likely to be a good place to do it'?)
     
    Posted: May 1, 2011 By: Dawg Member since: Feb 12, 2006
  3. hmmm

    hmmm UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,722 127

    lol smell my cheese

    i thought you might of thanked me for my excellent analogeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    so back to the original thread..
    overtaxing the rich,is it wrong .yes
    taxing them more erm maybe not but also maybe yes......im unsure
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
    Posted: May 1, 2011 By: hmmm Member since: Apr 14, 2011
  4. OptiRick

    OptiRick UKBF Regular Free Member

    295 46
    Well for a start I don't take any of the 'luxuries' I enjoy for granted, I worked hard for them.

    And just because *you* don't see something happening doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I grew up on a council estate and now 20 years later live in an area with approx 30% unemployment so I feel qualified to comment on the matter.

    In any case it's gone off topic, I mentioned the benefit situation as one reason that people resent taxation.

    The government need £loads and they have to take it from someone. Who should they take it from if not the 'rich'?

    It doesn't matter how much the rich deserve to keep their money or how hard they worked to earn it, the simple fact is that they have more of it. You can't tax money that people don't have, you can only take it from those who do have it.

    Earlier in this thread we had the opinion that the rich shouldn't be taxed heavily because their lifestyles are more expensive, is that OK as an excuse for hanging onto wealth, that one is so rich that it costs one a fortune to keep oneself in the lifestyle to which one has become accustomed?

    It's probably that sort of thinking that keeps approximately 1 billion people in the world undernourished.
     
    Posted: May 1, 2011 By: OptiRick Member since: Jun 4, 2010
  5. Dawg

    Dawg UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    10,900 3,466
    If you raise the tax on the rich, after a certain % the revenue raised will go down.
    As ever there are two core options: raise money or cut expenditure.
    If your method of raising money has hit the buffers then you have to cut expenditure.
    So if you raise tax rates for the rich to the extent that revenues actually go down then you have to start cutting.
    This is why, on purely practical grounds, overtaxing the rich is wrong: it's wrong because it won't work.
    And when it doesn't work the inevitable cuts will hit the poor before they hit the rich.

    If you can show me any feasible economic argument which refutes this I would be glad to hear it, as the above is part of a rather pessimistic scenario.
     
    Posted: May 1, 2011 By: Dawg Member since: Feb 12, 2006
  6. Lucan Unlordly

    Lucan Unlordly UKBF Ace Free Member

    1,370 252
    How do you know the woman has neither earnt nor created any money/value?
     
    Posted: May 2, 2011 By: Lucan Unlordly Member since: Feb 24, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.